tv [untitled] February 18, 2011 8:00pm-8:30pm PST
commission for thursday, february 17, 2011. before i take well, a couple of things again. the room is crowded, and the moment, there is no overflow room available, so we need everyone to cooperate with one another. there is no seating on the floors, no blocking the doors. it cre a fire hazard, and we
will have to stop the meeting if that occurs. we ask that you turn off cell phones, pagers, and electronic devices that may sound off during these proceedings. we also ask that you not engage in secondary discussion. if you feel the need to do so, please take the discussions outside, as they become this -- extremely disruptive to the process. also, the commission will not tolerate disruption, speaking out of order, clapping, were cheering. that could also stop the hearing. having said all of that, welcome to the democratic process. [laughter] [roll call] thank you, commissioners. we have a full commission. commissioners, the first category on your calendar is
items proposed for continuance. item one is 2740 mystery, proposed for continuance to march 3, 2011. further on your calendar, items 11, 1500 grand avenue -- this item is being proposed for continuance to may 12, 2011. commissioner olague: that is the entire -- >> just that one item is being proposed for continuance to may 12, 2011. however, item 13, 1763 stockton street. please note, the project sponsor has withdrawn the item, said the item is no longer on the calendar for your consideration. with that, commissioners, i'm not aware of any other item on calendar being proposed for continuance.
commissioner olague: is there any public comment on items proposed for continuance? just on items proposed for continuance. >> [inaudible] commissioner olague: ok. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot hear you. >> i turned down the microphone. >> irish you not to continue item 11. good afternoon, commissioners. i would like to speak in favor of this tunnel project -- commissioner olague: i'm sorry, sir, this is just to speak on the continuance, not on the item itself. if you wish to speak in favor of or opposition to the
continuance. >> i am in opposition to it. >> if i could just make another announcement -- all of you sitting or standing over here and over here -- we are going to ask that you go outside so we can control the flow into this room, but you will be right outside the room, and they will set up a cuing line -- set up a cue -- set up a queuing line. but we ask that you moved outside.
this is a proposed addition in the rear that goes right back to naples houses on the street. there is houses behind. if the restaurant plans on having dining in the rear, and last night, my clients met with the architect. they still do not have any plans. they have plans that my clients did not even understand was an addition. there is no dimensions or anything. the architect said he had to file them first with the planning department and the planners here, but the practice of the department is not to do 312 plants as a conditional use, which is funky. building additions right next to people's houses should have plans. instead, when they go through the files, it is really hard for the people to understand it. i support a continuance.
i think the question is what is the appropriate date, as well as the appropriate procedure, for writing when you have new construction or additions. an ncc2 or whatever it is, right next to people's houses. there should be plans, and they should not wait until one week before the hearing and the staff report to find them. thank you. commissioner olague: any additional public comment on items proposed for continuance? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: we just need a clarification. the continuance is being asked on 1500 grant -- does that also includes 1653 grant, or is that being heard today? >> that is being hurt it. commissioner antonini: we have 1500 grand being continued and 1763 stockton be withdrawn? that's correct. commissioner antonini: ok, that
clears it up for me. commissioner moore: i ask that we continue our discussions regarding this particular item or hear all of them, and then, i would like to hear an explanation why the stockton street was withdrawn, but i do not see any reason of fragmenting the discussion because we have spent so much time individually and together on getting numerous letters and considerations from letters, which going through them, when you read them all, add up to some discussion, i believe it is in our interest from a timing point of view not to have the same group of people come twice, but to hear it all at once. so either motion to continue all discussions on the subject matter or hear all of them today. commissioner antonini: i know this has been a subject that has been continued a number of
times, and there have been some negotiations and things going on, as we are aware of. i would rather hear at least part of this today, and maybe that might be all we end up hearing, perhaps because it may make it a lot easier. since they are discretionary reviews, is always possible that the discretionary review would be withdrawn for the other item. so i would be in favor of going with the calendar that we have proposed, which is to hear one of the three. >> the request for continued and the hearing came from the supervisors' offices and in discussion with the project sponsor on this. the request came from the supervisor's office. commissioner moore: to do what? >> to continue the one and here
the second. that was based on discussions with the project sponsor and the neighborhood. commissioner borden: i was just going to say that i have been in touch with the supervisor's office on this item about that. we have another item on the calendar on 12th street that is also related to antennas, and no one is talking about continuing that item, so considering we are hearing another antenna item, it would make sense. the supervisor was part of this discussion, and he was the reason we continue the one before. commissioner sugaya: it makes no sense to me why we are hearing one and not the other. what is the explanation for that? do we know? i'm just going to say that it does not make any sense. i support commissioner moore. there is a whole issue of cumulative effects and what not. the neighborhood has already voiced that a number of times,
so i respect the supervisor, but in this case, it will either be for me, as commissioner moore stated. commissioner antonini: commissioner antonini: what was the requested date for continuance for 5000 grand? >> may 12. commissioner antonini: i would like to make a motion to continue the following items. item one to the date requested. item 11 to may 12, and i believe that is it. >> second. commissioner sugaya: i would like to amend the motion to add item 12. commissioner antonini: know. no. i want -- no, i want to hear item 12 today for reasons i already stated, and that is that since they are discretionary reviews, it is quite possible, but depending on what is decided
today, the other one could be withdrawn, and we may never hear the other discretionary review. commissioner borden: the hard thing here is that i feel like we should -- the preference should be to go forward. in other what -- we continue it. i personally express my frustration that one reason we continue it is we were hoping the supervisors and community and private sponsor would come to a resolution, and unfortunately, that was not able to be done. for whatever reason. so this is kind of the -- for a compromise strategy that has been devised at this point. i know it is not perfect. nor is it great. i think the supervisor is hoping that there is some sort of dialogue or things that can be done in the interim. i do not know if that is true. we still might be hearing this on may 12, but i'm hoping something might be different going forward, but the situation
pushed us to the point that actions needed to start happening. commissioner moore: i appreciate commissioner borden explaining her conversation with the supervisor, but the amount of pressure being put on us in this particular case, cumulatively from neighbors in north beach, more effective than ever one else, given the distribution of powers in their neighborhood, i believe we owe it to ourselves to have a larger dialogue, and i understand the supervisor did not have the time to discuss this. these are federal laws, which we are continuing to interpret as best as we can. i read them, and i have a really hard time understanding when the laws apply or when they are amended. i feel i owe it to myself not to go just on one because the issue is a much larger discussion, and i would really prefer that the discussion is had prior to that
answer into a larger neighborhood, such as a north beach dense neighborhood. commissioner antonini: i just wanted to mention that on the issue, of the continuance, there is, as most of our issues, a division of opinion among the neighbors in the area, so i think that it is an issue that would be good to hear today. >> commissioners, before you take your action, let me point out, there has also been an amendment to the motion. i have not heard whether there is a second to that amendment or whether or not the maker of the motion is amenable to that. commissioner antonini: no, i did not accept it. >> the commissioners should vote on whether or not they want to accept the amendment to the motion. however, if for some reason that motion passed and the commission wants to continue item 12, we have to take public comment on the proposed continuance.
that was not included in the public comment request earlier. so if the commission could, madam president, take a vote on whether or not to accept the amendment. commissioner olague: ok, let's take a vote on the amendment. >> for the amended to include item 12 and the proposed continuance, commissioner moore. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye commissioner fong:fong no. commissioner olague: no. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner borden: the question was to not accept the amendment? no. the motion -- >> the motion
for the amendment fails. the main motion on the floor is still to continue items one and 11, as we have discussed. on the motion to continue item 1 as proposed to march 3 and item 11 to may 12, -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: no. commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner miguel: no. commissioner olague: no. i mean, yes. aye. >> we're continuing item 1 to march 3 and item 11 to march -- to may 12. commissioner olague: i was sort of reconsidering whether or not that was the way to go. i was actually reconsidering my previous vote. that is why i decided to move
that forward or attempted to anyway. >> ok, so those two items are continued, as we have discussed. thank you, commissioners. you are now on your consent calendar. that is within this calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of the item unless a member of the commission or public or staff so request. in that even, the matter would be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this for a future hearing. item two, 3157-3161 fillmore street. it is a request for a conditional use authorization to expand the existing small self- service restaurant into an adjacent vacant retail space to convert the operation to a full- service restaurant within the union street neighborhood commercial district.
following public comment, which would automatically remove this item from consent, this item is in your hands for consideration. commissioner olague: is there any public comment on this item? if there is any kind of public comment for or against the item -- okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner bordon. commissioner borden: move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion for approval, these conditions as a coat -- proposed by staff, -- commissioner moore, a sari. commissioner moore: [inaudible] >> thank you, commissioners. that item was approved unanimously. commissioners, you are now on commissioners' questions and matters. commissioner moore: i read an
article which i would like to share with you in case you did not see it. it is titled san francisco's precarious spot among the best cities for transit. as we are pushing every -- hard every day or every thursday in supporting transit and public transportation, among the first top 10 cities, unfortunately, san francisco only ranks sixth, one spot before los angeles. i found that rather sad, and i hope we can continue to contribute to making it better. if anybody has not seen the article, i would be happy to pass it around. it is really worthwhile reading. the second issue i would like to talk about is i would like to ask for further clarification of last week, the commission's approval for parkmerced. what i'd like to ask the commission for is the following -- is the resolution that the
planning commission passed last week already contain language that was the memorandum passed out by mayor's office of economic development and work force? that was the memo addressed to planning director william regarding subsequent approvals and provisions -- is that -- does that memorandum contained language to not increase the city's obligation liabilities? then it is likely out of commissions hands for subsequent action. however, should there be an increase or changes, there will be something that this commission should be appraised of at least. i asked that the development agreement are brought back to this commission for information purposes and this commission's own determination as to whether any changes increase the city's obligations. and there is a second point i would like to make regarding this fast-moving even.
the memorandum states, "-- that there are significant aspects of the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the sfpuc and sfmta, and therefore, subject to review by the city. the planning commission always has been and always is a strong advocate for comprehensive policy and physical planning. i myself speak to that frequently. meetings with the puc and mta commissions should be automatic. they should be initiated by staff and be part of the standard process we go through for any project that is complicated and as multifaceted as this. these meetings should preferably have chiles and not as this commission votes on far reaching matters. i think it would make the entire
city look much better and would create much better interaction between commissions and make better use of our time as we as private citizens spend a great deal to think and judge with that much information, which can be put together in a timely manner. i asked the commission to follow up and support me in this request. thank you. commissioner antonini: the commissioner raises an interesting point, but, as we know from having been here for a while, there are many times when approvals that we have changed significantly at the board of supervisors,. certain parts of the legislation do have to go through the supervisors, as other agencies, so there is a procedure in place for this, and certainly, that will take precedent, i think. i would like to attend today's
meeting in memory of gino samoli, a 1947 graduate of galileo and one of a long string of italian baseball players to come out of san francisco, and spent 10 years in the majors, had a couple of world series rings, but the most significant thing about his baseball career -- he was the first batter on the west coast for major league baseball. he was playing for the doctors at the time, and he stepped into the plate on april 15, 1915 -- 1958. i think he struck out, which is good for us because the giants were the home team. what is really significant is he went on for a career with ups after he finished his baseball career and was very active in the san francisco italian athletic club and was a lifetime resident of san francisco and gave back a lot to the community. certainly, a historic figure, particularly in view of our world series victory this year.
cimoli, last name. commissioner sugaya: yes, just a follow-up on commissioner moore 's common. i was also uncomfortable when we received the materials at the last minute -- actually at the hearing. because i had just spent hours and hours going through the development agreement page by page. i also had some comments on it during the hearing, and then have subsequently submitted three or four pages of written comments, mostly on the development agreement. if there were changes within that document, i do not know what they are at this point. so i did vote at that time, but it made me extremely uncomfortable in doing so. at the very least, i would think that we would want to have a report back from staph about the
status of that particular document, and as it moves through the city's process. i know at the end of the day, the board of supervisors will end up voting on it, but perhaps some status reports would be desirable. then, one other thing -- as you know, the tenderloin sro collaborative set up a tour for me a particular blocks in the tenderloin, and that took place last friday. commissioner moore attended, as a supervisor kim, whose district that part of the tenderloin is in. it lasted about an hour, and i think it was very informative in terms of the kinds of issues that they are facing as they try
to improve conditions in the tenderloin area. the other thing i think that's -- for people who do not of the tenderloin, i think is not one -- and i said this to them while i was there -- not one, sort of monolithic uniform -- there are not drug dealers everywhere in the tenderloin, and there are not particular -- you know, there are not liquor stores everywhere, like people might think, at least given the hearing that we had. we went down one block where there were a lot of grocery stores selling liquor, and when we turned the corner, there were not any, so i think there is a kind of diversity not only population-wise, but in terms of land use, and that kind of thing that people -- getting people who are not living there do not understand. it is a challenge to try to plan in the kind of environment, and i think the people who were there for the tort, not only people from the city, but also, people from channel two and the
"sf weekly." idea it was really good that they had two residents from the community lead the tour, so i just wanted to report that back to the commission and the public. commissioner miguel: there was an interesting gathering at the department last night regarding the housing element, which will be coming to us, and interesting discussion from many points of view, and, hopefully, that is assisting in the process. i have met with people during the last week regarding projects on presidio, and on treasure island. commissioner moore: i just wanted to add a couple comments regarding the tenderloin tour.
i was actually amazed about the strong spirit of neighborhood, and people giving each other support in light of adversity. i was positively surprised about how uniform the buildings that tended to be maintained, in strong contrast to similar neighborhoods in los angeles -- south central, for example, and really happy to see that people are finding an innovative way to deal with adversity. i felt very safe, well informed by the people and lead us, and for anybody interested in jazz, we just happened to look into an amazing event, which happens every second friday of the month at 12:30 in the lobby of the cadillac hotel, and for anybody likes jazz, you would be really blown away because it is quite amazing. so if anybody wants to find a so if anybody wants to find a reason to go there, every se